DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “jig pin” of claims 6 and 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a second protector” in line 7 is unclear. It is unclear whether a first and a second protector are required or a single protector is being referred to without the need of an additional protector.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as a single protector and suggests “a protector” for clarity.
Claims 7-8 depending from claim 6 are therefore also rejected.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a third protector” in line 7 is unclear. It is unclear whether a first, second and a third protector are required; or a single protector is being referred to without the need of an additional protector.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret this as a single protector and suggests “a protector” for clarity.
Claim 10 depending from claim 9 is therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reed US 6864428.
Regarding claim 1, Reed US 6864428 discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a housing (16 in Fig. 2) including a base portion (base of 16 in Fig. 2), a side wall (side wall of 16 in Fig. 2) configured to extend from the base portion (base of 16) and have a predetermined height with respect to the base portion (base of 16), at one lateral side of the base portion (base of 16 as depicted in Fig. 2), and
a first assembling hole (24 in Fig. 2 and 3) formed vertically at one end of an upper edge of the side wall (side wall of 16);
a circuit board (14 in Fig. 2) that is positioned in the housing (16);
a cover (12 in Fig. 2) configured to be disposed vertically above the circuit board (14) and be attached to the housing (16 as depicted in Fig. 5), and
a second assembling hole (18 in Fig. 2) formed at a position corresponding to the first assembling hole (24);
a coupling member (26 in Fig. 2) for coupling the housing (16) and the cover (12) together by vertically passing through the first assembling hole (24) and the second assembling hole (18); and
a first protector (30 in Fig. 3 and 6) configured to enclose at least part of one end of the coupling member (26) while the housing (16) and the cover (12) are coupled together (as depicted in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Reed discloses the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first protector (30) is assembled corresponding to the first assembling hole (24), under an area (22 in Fig. 2 and 5) that is curved and extends from one end of the upper edge of the side wall (side wall of 16) in a direction perpendicular to a height direction to enclose the first assembling hole (24 as depicted in Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Reed discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a housing (16 in Fig. 2) including a base portion (base of 16 in Fig. 2), a side wall (side wall of 16 in Fig. 2) configured to extend from the base portion (base of 16) and have a predetermined height with respect to the base portion (base of 16), at one lateral side of the base portion (base of 16), and
a jig hole (24 in Fig. 2 and 3) formed on one surface of the side wall (side wall of 16);
a circuit board (14 in Fig. 2) that is positioned in the housing (16);
a cover (12 in Fig. 2) disposed above the circuit board (14) and attached to the housing (16); and
a second protector (30 in Fig. 3 and 6) configured to enclose at least part of a jig pin (26 in Fig. 2) passing through the jig hole (24).
Regarding claim 7, Reed discloses the vehicle control apparatus of claim 6, wherein the second protector (30) is shaped to correspond to one end of the jig pin (26 as depicted in Fig. 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida US 20180249585.
Regarding claim 3, Reed discloses the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1.
Reed does not explicitly disclose a guide protrusion positioned adjacent to the first assembling hole and a guide hole positioned adjacent to the second assembling hole and corresponding to the guide protrusion.
However, Yoshida US 20180249585 (in Fig. 3) a guide protrusion (117b) positioned adjacent to a first assembling hole (114) and a guide hole (124) positioned adjacent to a second assembling hole (123) and corresponding to the guide protrusion (117b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a guide protrusion positioned adjacent to the first assembling hole of Reed and a guide hole positioned adjacent to the second assembling hole and corresponding to the guide protrusion, as taught by Yoshida see [0028], in order to further provide positioning.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Masuda US 4557654.
Regarding claim 8, Reed discloses the vehicle control apparatus of claim 6, wherein the second protector (30) is joined to an inner surface of the side wall (sidewall of 16), that encloses the jig hole (24).
Reed does not explicitly disclose by thermal fusion.
Regarding the thermal fusion, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from the patented structure of Reed. See MPEP § 2113
However, Masuda US 4557654 discloses a protector (1) joined by thermal fusion (see Col. 4 Ln. 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use thermal fusion, as taught by Masuda (Col. 4 Ln. 28-30), in order to provide a tight fit.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umeda JP 2004079562A.
Regarding claim 4, Reed discloses the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1.
Reed does not explicitly disclose the first protector has a same circular cross-section from one side toward another side along a height direction.
However, Umeda JP 2004079562A discloses a protector (16 in Fig. 4b) has a same circular cross-section from one side toward another side along a height direction (as depicted in Fig. 4b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to change the shape of the first protector of Reed such that it has a same circular cross-section from one side toward another side along a height direction, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by as taught by Umeda see [0024].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe US 20120155987.
Regarding claim 5, Reed discloses the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1.
Reed does not explicitly disclose that the first protector is tapered at one end along a height direction on an opposite side.
However, Watanabe US 20120155987 discloses (in Fig. 3a) a first protector (30a) tapered at one end (36b) along a height direction on an opposite side (as depicted in Fig. 3a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to the claimed invention to change the shape of the first protector of Reed such that it is tapered at one end along a height direction on an opposite side, as taught by Watanabe, in order to have the coupler positioned reliably and easily at a center of the first protector (see [0053] of Watanabe).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mukado US 20160073517 Fig. 1-2; Sawada US 11825616 Fig. 1-3 disclose an electronic housing with a base, a sidewall with openings, and a cover.
Langermeier US 2878905 Fig. 1-3; Chou US 20030185646 Fig. 1-3 disclose a screw molded cap.
Roth US 20210164610 Fig. 33 discloses a device mounting system with a sealing protector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/CHRISTOPHER L AUGUSTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights